I would love to see Canon improve their performance in this area and I am sure that they will, but I have no interest in improvement for improvement's sake which is how I read many of these comments.

As I said, I have yet to see anything put up as an example of what you can do with Sony/Nikon that I couldn't replicate with Canon gear. I don't see any game-changing impact on the state of current "ART" as a result of it. I see excellent photographers doing inspiring work with both systems. This technology has been around for a while and I have yet to see anything come out of it that makes me say… “OMG, I need to put all my Canon stuff up on e-bay and convert to Nikon so I can do this work”.

So, yes from a technology perspective, improve it please, but from a photographic perspective, for me at least, it is sort of a “non-starter”.

OK, a perfectly rational sentiment. I'm similarly hoping Canon will improve in this one area tho. I still use my older Canon bodies for lots of shots, but I pull out the exmors when I know I'll be pushing the dark areas, cuz there are times I do need that unbanded performance. It's not all about DR, it's about the quality of that DR. And the ballyhoo over the 5d2 was, in my case, all for naught, as it was a very poor performer for my uses, left a bad after-taste. Improvements are inching along tho, 5d3's better and 6d looks pretty good so far. Might even buy one.

I think it will get fixed eventually since:

1. I don't think Canon is going to go too long with a potential image quality deficiency even if it is pretty much a corner case.

2. It costs them something in terms of material cost, battery life and physical size to incorporate the separate chip AFE that they use in all their cameras. They will feel the pain on the low end first in terms of the Rebels and things like the SL 1 where cost, size and battery life are paramount.

What is Canon doing? Delivering value to their shareholders by consistently selling more cameras than their competitors. If that trend continues, the innovations of other manufacturers may become irrelevant.

The market (and I am not referring to the whingers on this site) seems to be happy with what Canon is doing. I think an important thing, which a lot of us tend to forget, is that most users of DSLRs never test the limits of their cameras sensors. That has allowed Canon to get a lot of use of the current 18MP sensor.

It looks like Canon is following a totally planned script. My money would be on the 7DII being the camera that will show Canon's next generation of APS-C sensors. After it comes out, Canon will probably wait at least 6 months to trickle the sensor down to the 80D.

What is good to try to do is to plan your buying cycles around your vendor's technology lifecycle. Decide how far you want to be behind the leading edge, and try to avoid buying when a refresh is due. That means, unless you absolutely have to buy an APS-C camera (and I am lumping the G1X in here too) avoid it until after the 7DII launches.

But that is exactly the reason that has most people on this forum up in arms, they AREN'T keeping up with advancements in new technology, they are simply rereleasing the same camera over and over again in different configurations. The average consumer may not notice or even care, but we dedicated shooters and die hard Canon fans do!

Fine. But, 'we dedicated shooters and die hard Canon fans' make up an infinitesimal fraction of their market. The vast majority of dSLR buyers are 'average consumers'.

Now imagine what would happen if we "infinitesimal fraction of the market" stopped supporting Canon. Marketshare is directly related to mindshare. It doesn't matter what the actual facts are, only what people perceive are the facts (Marketing 101). Ask Apple about the Final Cut Pro X fiasco. When enough pros (who equally represented a small portion of Apple's market share) bashed the new editing software, everyone else abandoned it as well as they assumed the pros must know what they are talking about. Canon like any other company need professionals to shoot great images with their gear to market the possibilities to non-professionals. If enough pros start complaining, even those not knowledgable about it will start to echo those complaints creating a snowball affect.

Guys, I'll probably ask a very naive and somewhat a silly question... What exactly is the difference between different generations of Canon sensors? I mean, let's say Canon 5d ii and iii share the same sensor (correct?) however 5d iii overall has a better signal/noise ratio. That means that the improvements in the image quality do not necessarily require a new sensor technology? So, why do we all want Canon to have a new generation of sensors in their DSLR? Just curios

It is nothing but a bunch of gearhead whiners crying because "theirs" ain't the biggest this week. Ask yourself this: have you ever been able to walk through a gallery and point out which camera shot which photo? If the stuff was as bad as some of these idiots claim, nobody would use it.

Something else you might want to ask yourself: If this Sony technology is such a "game changer" why hasn't the game changed? Where are the stunning examples of what can be done? Why do we continue to see shots of the back of lens caps, mediocre landscape shots with shadows lifted 5 stops just to prove a point? Where are the game changing photographs from this so-called game changing technology?

If this represents such a huge advance in the state of the art of making art, where the heck is the art? Galeries won't hang your DxO curves.

I agree with much of what you say as art is only as good as the vision of the artist. People don't pay professional photographers for their skills (as anyone can learn to master those), people pay us for our creative interpretation of a moment in time. A photographer like Lindsay Adler gets paid the big bucks for her creativity, not necessarily her technical skills.

However I do feel that as a fashion and beauty photographer, the more resolution I have to work with, the better I am able to display my interpretation. High resolution at that price point is the ONLY reason why the Nikon D800 appealed to someone like me and why I am dying to see Canon's large megapixel offering. As a beauty and fashion photographer, you want your images to stand out and be full of crisp detail and working with more resolution helps in that sense. Other than that, I prefer Canon gear and Canon lenses. The images coming off my 1DX in low light situations is nothing short of astounding!

That being said, great artists can create with whatever tool given to them. Here is a wonderful example of a music video shot with a Canon 550D. Now if you listen to the experts, you shouldn't be able to color grade and/or add too many VFX to Canon's compressed video format, but this video completely obliterates that thinking:http://philipbloom.net/2013/03/23/sbtrkt/

But that is exactly the reason that has most people on this forum up in arms, they AREN'T keeping up with advancements in new technology, they are simply rereleasing the same camera over and over again in different configurations. The average consumer may not notice or even care, but we dedicated shooters and die hard Canon fans do!

Fine. But, 'we dedicated shooters and die hard Canon fans' make up an infinitesimal fraction of their market. The vast majority of dSLR buyers are 'average consumers'.

Now imagine what would happen if we "infinitesimal fraction of the market" stopped supporting Canon. Marketshare is directly related to mindshare. It doesn't matter what the actual facts are, only what people perceive are the facts (Marketing 101). Ask Apple about the Final Cut Pro X fiasco. When enough pros (who equally represented a small portion of Apple's market share) bashed the new editing software, everyone else abandoned it as well as they assumed the pros must know what they are talking about. Canon like any other company need professionals to shoot great images with their gear to market the possibilities to non-professionals. If enough pros start complaining, even those not knowledgable about it will start to echo those complaints creating a snowball affect.

eh sorry but since i discovered this forum (long before i joined) i bet 70% of what i read here are complains from so called "pros".

it´s bitching about canon every day, no matter which thread you join.every day at least 3 people write something like "im switching to xy".

by now it had no influence.... and im really tired of this unproductive brabblings.

But that is exactly the reason that has most people on this forum up in arms, they AREN'T keeping up with advancements in new technology, they are simply rereleasing the same camera over and over again in different configurations. The average consumer may not notice or even care, but we dedicated shooters and die hard Canon fans do!

Fine. But, 'we dedicated shooters and die hard Canon fans' make up an infinitesimal fraction of their market. The vast majority of dSLR buyers are 'average consumers'.

Now imagine what would happen if we "infinitesimal fraction of the market" stopped supporting Canon. Marketshare is directly related to mindshare. It doesn't matter what the actual facts are, only what people perceive are the facts (Marketing 101). Ask Apple about the Final Cut Pro X fiasco. When enough pros (who equally represented a small portion of Apple's market share) bashed the new editing software, everyone else abandoned it as well as they assumed the pros must know what they are talking about. Canon like any other company need professionals to shoot great images with their gear to market the possibilities to non-professionals. If enough pros start complaining, even those not knowledgable about it will start to echo those complaints creating a snowball affect.

How long ago did you take Marketing 101, and how well did you do in the class?

I understand what you're saying, but you fail to understand they're NOT releasing the same camera over and over, they're reusing a good sensor in the same way automakers use the same already fuel-efficient and sufficiently powerful engine for multiple model years and across trim levels.

Let's take your analogy - did the Final Cut Pro X fiasco affect sales of iPods and iPhones? No. This 'sensor stagnation' is something for forum posters to bitch about, but it won't affect people picking up a Rebel from the shelf at Best Buy. Also, every time someone tunes their TV to a major sporting event, they'll see lots of pros with Canon white lenses (even if none of them bought them personally). The 5DII outsold the D700 and the 5DIII is outselling the D800...so odds are, the next wedding someone goes to, they'll see a pro using Canon. Etc.

I'm not saying Canon shouldn't improve their sensors – they should! But the idea that there will be dire consequences at the corporate level if those improvements are merely marginal is simply foolish.

Could someone please provide a list of sites or publications that have done side-by-side comparisons of Canon's 18mp sensor to the sensors being used in Nikon's new generation of crop-frame cameras.

There seem to be a lot of drama queens here who pontificate on how much better the new generation of Nkons are, but when I've looked at sample images, I either see no discernible difference or, at higher ISOs, a little bit better performance from Canon.

A handful of individuals on this site keep trashing the performance of the 18mp sensor and others are repeating it as fact. Since this is a site adored by gearheads, how about some objective third-party comparisons?

Could someone please provide a list of sites or publications that have done side-by-side comparisons of Canon's 18mp sensor to the sensors being used in Nikon's new generation of crop-frame cameras.

There seem to be a lot of drama queens here who pontificate on how much better the new generation of Nkons are, but when I've looked at sample images, I either see no discernible difference or, at higher ISOs, a little bit better performance from Canon.

A handful of individuals on this site keep trashing the performance of the 18mp sensor and others are repeating it as fact. Since this is a site adored by gearheads, how about some objective third-party comparisons?

You need look no further than DxOMark. After all, no one else does.

I wonder, though...when you factor in the lenses - the 64% increase in MP count doesn't help the D800 resolve better than the 5DIII, so how much is the 33% increase of the Nikon APS-C vs. Canon's 18 MP going to help?

Could someone please provide a list of sites or publications that have done side-by-side comparisons of Canon's 18mp sensor to the sensors being used in Nikon's new generation of crop-frame cameras.

There seem to be a lot of drama queens here who pontificate on how much better the new generation of Nkons are, but when I've looked at sample images, I either see no discernible difference or, at higher ISOs, a little bit better performance from Canon.

A handful of individuals on this site keep trashing the performance of the 18mp sensor and others are repeating it as fact. Since this is a site adored by gearheads, how about some objective third-party comparisons?

The primary issue is the fact that the Canon implementation does not produce the same dynamic range as the latest Nikons as a result of increased “read-out” noise at low ISO. Most of this argument is stimulated by the DxO test results for dynamic range which you can find on their site. In addition, as one guy has pointed out, this noise tends to manifest patterns that the Nikon gear does not have. Whether this matters to you or not, depends on what you need to do with the camera. If the nature of what you shoot and your PP workflow requires that you consistently lift shadows a couple stops, then you may run into this issue, otherwise it is probably no big deal.

The way I look at it, the Canon gear as presently implemented, does not offer the same latitude for exposure correction that some of the later Nikon stuff does. You can search the web for Canon 5DII banding and you will see a lot of examples. You need to decide whether this is a problem or not in your opinion, related to your own photography. I have sort of a funny perspective on it which is that (IMO anyway), most of the examples show what you can do if you use the Canon gear incorrectly. In almost every case where a comparison is given, if the Canon gear were used properly the same image could be made with both. Now for the artsy fartsy part: IMO, in most cases, the image wasn’t worth making in the first place -- it is nothing more than an example of what happens if you push the canon into the region where it doesn’t work well. Basically, “doc… it hurts when I do this” to which the doc replies, “don’t do that”. Unfortunately there are some cases where you have to “do that” in which case… for now anyway, go buy a Nikon.

I ground through this thought process myself recently and then bought a 5DIII. In the end I thought that the things that they DID improve were worth the upgrade to me and any sensor deficiencies were easy to work around. I had a 5DII (probably the worst offender in the "banding" department) and never had problems with the so-called "issue". I am not saying that they don't need to fix it, but I would rather that they take their time and do it right (don't break something else in the process -- as sometimes happens).

Could someone please provide a list of sites or publications that have done side-by-side comparisons of Canon's 18mp sensor to the sensors being used in Nikon's new generation of crop-frame cameras.

There seem to be a lot of drama queens here who pontificate on how much better the new generation of Nkons are, but when I've looked at sample images, I either see no discernible difference or, at higher ISOs, a little bit better performance from Canon.

A handful of individuals on this site keep trashing the performance of the 18mp sensor and others are repeating it as fact. Since this is a site adored by gearheads, how about some objective third-party comparisons?

The primary issue is the fact that the Canon implementation does not produce the same dynamic range as the latest Nikons as a result of increased “read-out” noise at low ISO. Most of this argument is stimulated by the DxO test results for dynamic range which you can find on their site. In addition, as one guy has pointed out, this noise tends to manifest patterns that the Nikon gear does not have. Whether this matters to you or not, depends on what you need to do with the camera. If the nature of what you shoot and your PP workflow requires that you consistently lift shadows a couple stops, then you may run into this issue, otherwise it is probably no big deal.

The way I look at it, the Canon gear as presently implemented, does not offer the same latitude for exposure correction as some of the later Nikon stuff does. You can search the web for Canon 5DII banding for example and you will see a lot of examples. You need to decide if this is a problem or not in your opinion, related to your own photography. I have sort of a funny perspective on it which is that IMO anyway, most of the examples show what you can do if you use the Canon gear incorrectly. In almost every case where a comparison is given, if the Canon gear were used properly the same image could be made with both. Now for the artsy fartsy part: IMO, in most cases, the image wasn’t worth making in the first place it is nothing more than an example of what happens if you push the canon into the region where it doesn’t work well. Basically, “doc… it hurts when I do this” to which the doc replies, “don’t do that”. Unfortunately there are some cases where you have to “do that” in which case… for now anyway, go buy a Nikon.

Very well said. Let us not get back into analysing shots of sheds with white sides facing the sun and having dark insides...

Pay close attention to the new sensor in the Canon EOS SL1 as far as performance goes. We’re told this sensor will appear in the EOS 70D, but not the EOS 7D Mark II.

Ok, Canon has just mutilated the potential of the 70D to sell well.

LOL.. if canon has proved one thing over and over again it is that they can sell even old bread well.

what people on this forum think has absolutely no influence on the mass market.actually it´s sad because i too would like to see canon make more progess on image quality.

not that canon cameras make bad quality images.. just that IQ has not much improved over the last years.

Correction: Canon's IQ hasn't changed or improved over the last years for anything besides those moving from the 1D series to the 1DX. Nikon, Sony, Pentax, are all delivering new sensors with better performance.

What is Canon doing?

Nothing. What a joke of a company.

They make nearly a $1 billion in operating profit. Hardly call that a joke. Keep in mind that most purchasers of the low end cameras want very basic functions (I doubt many even shoot in raw) so current technology is good enough for them

Hi, Totally agree... many people are happy with the image taken from their mobile, so image from any Canon entry level DSLR will be wow to them. IMHO, the selling point of Canon DSLR is easy to use and that will make a big different when choosing their first DSLR.

Have a nice day.

+1

the XXD line market is targeted towards basically the same market as the rebel - only difference is the XXD targets first time DSLR buyers with a little more disposable income